around the country. next on c-span, "newsmakers." >> we are four here is closer to a nuclear iran. -- four here's a closer to a nuclear iran. they continue -- four years closer to and nuclear -- a nuclear iran. he went to the mideast and you flew to turkey and iraq. he skipped israel. our closest friend in the region. he went to the other nations. by the way, they noticed you skipped israel. on arabic tv, you said america had been dismissive and divisive. he said america had dictated other nations. mr. president, america has not dictated other nations. we have free other nations from

dictatorship. >> let me respond. if we are going to talk about trips we take, when i was a candidate for office, the first trip i took was to visit our troops. when i went to israel as a candidate, i did not take donors. i did not attend fund-raisers. i went to the holocaust museum there to remind myself of the nature of evil and why our bonds with israel will be an unbreakable. i saw families who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms. i was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids. as president, we funded an iron dome program to stop those missiles. that is how i have used my

travels. when i travel to israel and when i travel to the region. the central question at this point is going to be, who is going to be credible to all parties involved. they can look at my track record, whether it is iran sanctions, dealing with counterterrorism, supporting democracy, supporting women's writes, supporting religious minorities, they can save the president of the united states has stood on the right side of history. that kind of credibility is precisely why we have been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues. >> you can watch the entire final debate on foreign policy between president obama and mitt romney today at 12:10 eastern here on c-span.

>> this is the downsizing of the charts. you are watching it live. one of 10,000 homes they are trying to get done in the next four years. these are houses that are never coming back. >> one-family every 20 minutes moving out. >> moving out of detroit. >> these houses are disappearing from the landscape. >> just recently, 164 firefighters were laid off as part of the downsizing, effort for mayor bing to get fire -- to get finances under control. detroit must have the highest cases of arson in the country.

they were rehired. the money came from the department of homeland security. i cannot want to overstate. that is something you want to think about. the department of homeland security needed to step in to keep detroit as safe as it could be. it could be a lot safer. i have wondered making this film, the auto industry bailout. we have seen the bank bailouts. are we heading into an era of bailout the city. is there such thing of killing out the city? >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. on "q & a." >> joining us is senator rand paul of kentucky. thanks for being with us. here for the question is susan

ferrechio and niels lesniewski. let me begin with questions asking for the video from benghazi on the evening of september 12 and september 11. do you watch that video released? what do you think we will learn? >> i have a lot of questions about benghazi. i do not know if the video shows of people die in the street or information you do not want to see. my question is why were no special forces some and? could they have got in there in time. that is important. why were there no marines there in the first place? whoever made that decision, it was an unwise decision to put an ambassador in one of the most dangerous countries on earth and

have no marines there to protect him. whoever made that decision should be fired immediately. the president said the bus stops with him. ck stopsllary -- the bul with him. he or hillary clinton needs to have the buck stopped with them. >> who told susan rice when she went on the morning shows that the film was the reason for the spontaneous demonstration. who do you think told her and jay carney to talk about it as the videotape being responsible for the demonstration? >> i do not know. that is what has made it worse for the administration. this went on for about two weeks. they have been kibitzing over

something over whether the president said it was terrorism or not terrorism. they said it was primarily because of this movie. they spent money apologizing to the people of pakistan as if somehow the american government or the american people have something to do with this crazy movie. that was bad policy and bad form. it is why this story goes on and on. i get back to the primary question. why was no one guarding be ambassador? why did they removed the 16- person security team that has -- had requested to stay? it was requested that a security team stay in one of the most dangerous countries in the world. would you like to be the bureaucrat in the state department said, you need to come home because we do not have the money? what i have been pounding home is, four days after the dc-3 was

removed, they spent $100,000 to spend money for electric cars that cost the taxpayer 250,000 dollars per car in subsidies. this was a political statement they were making. they wanted to show off for the europeans and say, we are as european as you are. we do not have money to provide for the basic security of an embassy. that is inexcusable. whoever made that decision, the already know that. whoever made those decisions should be fired. >> susan ferrechio from the washington exam a. >> the house held a hearing about this matter a few weeks ago. there were questions from being -- questions about who said no to the extra security forces. there were questions answered and many left unanswered. there is an internal

investigation where they are looking for reasons behind all of this. can he talk about what congress can do going forward to answer some of these questions? is anything you can do to force the administration to talk more about this beyond coming on the air and talking about it and asking questions yourself? >> there can be investigations. people can be subpoenaed. the e-mails can be subpoenaed. this is going to be a decision that the voters make in november on leadership. if the voters think it is leadership to spend money on a global warming and is itself and not spend an adequate amount of money on security in libya, that is inexcusable. if people know about that, they will choose new leadership. if we do not choose new leadership, we still should investigate. i do not think this is a political question.

it is one of responsibility. over a decade, i said after 9/11, why was no one fired? and fbi agent in minnesota since 70 letters to his superiors that said we need to investigate this guy. how about a warrant to look at his computer? when you make a mistake that cost some one their life, someone who made the decision about the plane and the security detail and no marines in libya, maybe they made an honest mistake. that person needs to no longer be in a position to make those decisions. they need to be done immediately. i guarantee the president knows who that person is. the think they do not know who turned down the security force and the marines? somebody -- do you think they do not know who turned down the security force and the marines? >> the think it will be the secretary of state or the lower level folks who will end up

taking the fall for this? >> someone needs to except irresponsibility. when you run a corporation, you may be the greatest ceo in the world, if you are a corporation goes bankrupt, you lose your job. you may be the smartest manager in major league baseball, but if you lose 100 games, you will lose your job. he was at top need to pick the right managers. someone needs to take responsibility for this. someone needs to take responsibility so we do not have the same person in charge of security for embassies making the same decisions. i read something the other day that sometimes it takes five years to figure out how to get marines to protect an embassy. i thought government was bad, but five years to decide whether or not we are going to have more brains. other than iran or afghanistan or pakistan, libya -- five years to decide whether or not we are going to have more marines.

we have an ambassador traveling around with no harm to marine. >> niels lesniewski, congressional reporter for roll call. >> i want to shift from the subject of libya. a political action committee is running campaign ads against democrats who have supported funding for libya as well as pakistan and egypt. you have gotten some criticism from fellow republicans, including lindsey graham and john mccain about the effort you have lunch. speak a little bit about how you intend to move the party and if you think you will have the momentum going forward? >> if you ask people -- i have told people i can go to the kentucky democrat convention, stand in front of all democrats and tell them, we do not have enough money to send money to

pakistan, egypt, libya, countries where mombs are burnig our flax. we have problems at home. we have -- our flags. i can get 90% of democrats to agree with me. we wanted these bridges to be repaired or replaced 20 years. we have money to send overseas. if you look and follow the trail of the money, so much of it is stolen. look at mubarak in egypt. he was a reliable ally who stole us blind. we gave him $60 billion over 30 years. his family is worth 10 billion- $15 billion. this happened throughout. people said, we need the foreign aid because it convinces people to like us.

do you know what mubarak did with it, he but tear-gas made in pennsylvania and sprayed his people when they decided to gather and protests against him. far from foreign aid buying us legitimacy in this country, it offends the people who hate the dictators who we give money to. this will change. the majority of people do not agree with it. i am and minority in the senate on this position. when you talk to the populace -- and this is one reason we put the ad out there -- people will be mad when they see people turning our flag when they see us sending these people money. >> will you or your political action committee be open to supporting republican primary challenges against this in the future? senator graham is up for reelection in 2014. >> i do not foresee getting involved in primaries against incumbent republicans.

if incumbent republicans are campaigning for democrats senators this time around, they may have their own problems in a primary without me being involved. i do not think in a general election republican voters in a primary will be happy about anybody campaigning for someone of the opposite party in a general election. >> the stern to the current campaign. susan ferrechio. >> you have been out stumping for mitt romney. you have been in ohio, which is a state pivotal for the upcoming election. many people talk about it as the state that may decide the election. some say obama has the lead to a bear. the jobs picture is improving their. how do you think things are going there for governor romney? do you think it is possible he could win o hi a? >> i may two trips to ohio -- the think it is possible for him

to win ohio? >> i made two trips to ohio. there is a wave of taking over state house state senate and state legislatures. you hampshire is the same way. they have 2/3 of the senate and 2/3 of the house is republican. in ohio, kasich wins by a couple of points, but they take over the state house and the state senate. a win 10 out of 18 congressional seats. we are projecting things, you cannot go from 2008 and 2010 and say we are went back to 2008 before we get to 2012. it is a direct line from 2010 to get to 2012. of the polls are underestimating where we will be. my prediction is that this will be 1918. this will be an election that was projected to be close.

-- my prediction is that this -- be 980. -- 1980. >> how to reconcile some of the policy positions you have that are different from governor romney, particularly when it pertains to foreign affairs and being on the campaign trail for him. you a father has not been supportive in the same way you have. -- your father has not been supportive in the same way you have. >> we try to choose who we think is best as republicans in the primary. i think my dad is best and still do. who we nominate is pretty significant.

when you look at the economic issues, i think president obama thinks you hire a few more government workers and everything may be ok. you have to grow the private sector. i will always agree with the republican nominee. i hope to keep us out of additional warrants. i hope to be part of the solution in -- i hope to keep us cut of additional wars. governor romney said he was ready for us to come out of afghanistan. i did not think there is much daylight between governor romney and president obama on the war. the real difference is on the economy. i will try to keep us out of war in syria and keep us out of the intifada -- out of pre-emptive war around the country.

there are probably 10 of us who are reticent to give the president unlimited authority for war. they believe congress declares war and not the president. there are probably a few democrats who believe that. there is a bipartisan libertarian, constitutional caucus on war issues. i have been working hard with many on the other side. i worked with senator why then, and senator -- senator wyden and senator udall and others. >> some have indicated they think you will run for president in 2016. any interest in seeking higher office? >> that depends on what happens next tuesday or a week from tuesday. i want to be involved in the national debate.

i want to transform the republican party that is -- into a party that is competitive in all 50 states. from the west coast and new england, we give up 150 electoral votes to begin with. that why it comes down to we have to win florida and ohio. i would like to be competitive in california, oregon, and washington. one way to be competitive is to have a less aggressive foreign policy that does not always think war is the answer and be more tolerant when it comes to people who do not agree with us on every issue and be a fiscally conservative party that believes in balancing the budget. if you ran primarily on the message of balancing the budget and that was the primary message, even in california, there were democrats who would voted for you if the new york primary purpose was to control government and control out of control deficit spending. >> what about 2016?

>> nobody knows what happens to a week from tuesday. we will see what happens a week from tuesday. my primary purpose is going around the country campaigning for governor romney. i hope governor romney wins a week from tuesday. >> susan ferrechio. >> another component is the senate. you need four seats for republicans to take control. it looks as if things were going -- looked as if things were going in favor of the republicans for a while. there were some sleep -- there were some controversial statements tea party republicans have made. the tea party is tracking down the republican efforts to take over the senate. we have todd akin in missouri and richard mourdock in indiana. those seats were looking in

favor of republicans and now are less so. can you talk about where you think the tea party has struggled to get republicans elected. are they a drag on the ticket as some people are saying? >> those who think the tea party is a drag on the ticket are not paying attention at all. if you look around the united states, look at all of the new state houses that were taking -- taken over, the new governors and new senators. did we win every race? no, and we will not win every race this time. when won an enormous amount of seats in statewide elections. just because we did not win every race does not mean it was not a big way. people are worried about the debt. that is what the tea party is worried about. i see the way: on through 2012. i would be surprised -- i see

the wave going on through 2012. i would be surprised if we did not pick up seats in 2012. >> what would be your advice for candidates coming out of the tea party when it comes to talking about social issues like abortion and other issues that have gotten candidates in trouble in this cycle? >> the point is we are divided as a country. we are almost evenly divided on the issue of abortion. i do not think the law is changing anytime soon. the way you change things is change the hearts and minds of the population. we are worlds away from that. we get bogged down in talking about exceptions to rules. we get uaway from the primary question we are worried about. that is 23 people -- 23 million

people out of work. i am socially conservative, but i talk about economic issues because i think it is important to the country and what unites a lot of us. it does not divide us. talking about the debt and the budget and unemployment are things that everyone is concerned with and everybody should be on the same side of those issues. >> let me go back to susan ferrechio comment about the races you are supporting. can todd akin win the missouri senate race? >> i think he can win. missouri voted 70% in a referendum against obamacare. i think the president has stopped campaigning there. i did not think many people are listing it as a battleground

state. missouri has become more conservative and more republican. he has a chance. >> susan ferrechio. >> as in indiana, both states are trending republicans but the candidates are in trouble. the think the republicans will be able to take over the majority? will they win enough seats? >> yes or no? 50%, i cannot tell you for sure. we will have to see which direction we go. it is going to be a big year if we win the senate. >> speaking to that a little, your message with senator mcconnell on saying there is a 50-50 chance is the same thing he says all the time. how will you work with your senior senator if he is the

majority leader and there are issues on which the two of you disagree? >> i was going to say maybe the reason i hear the 50-50 comments is because i am on the road with him quite a bit and do quite a bit of town halls with him. we do not agree on every issue. he has been good on keeping the republicans together on issues like obamacare, filing the lawsuit, getting the lawsuit started. he has done a good job keeping republicans together. if we have differences, we try to keep that private. >> you will support him for his reelection? >> yes. >> it is a big change. he was supporting your opponent during the republican primary. can you talk about your relationship with him and how it has changed? he is an important figure in the senate and will be even more so

in january. he has been criticized by people on the right thing he has not been conservative enough and he has not done enough to help romney and he has not been strong enough and does not have a strong enough that the bone as a conservative leader in the senate. he has been on opposite sides of you from time to time. can you talk about your relationship with him? he actively tried to get someone else to be the primary candidate. now you are traveling around the country together campaigning. >> particularly people who want to have candidates are always thinking the candidate has to agree on this list of issues. if they do not, they are not perfect. the only perfect candidate is when you run for office. you never disagree with yourself. we will always have some disagreements among republicans. on the majority of issues on debt and overspending and the primary issues that affect the

country, we are on the same pace. you are not hearing as much of that feeling in the senate caucus. i have not heard much of that. senator mcconnell has been able to hear both sides. he has a caucus that ranges from folks like myself and demint and lee on one side to some in new england who are not as conservative. he has to keep 47 strong-willed people on the same pace. he has done a good job at that. >> when mitch mcconnell works with senator reid and try to come up with a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, is there anything in that package that would cause you too strenuously object and delayed the consideration in senate? >> even though i did not voted for the sequester, the idea of

reducing spending is primary and we need to, even military spending. the only way i would vote to get rid of that is if there is the- are significant real cuts elsewhere. -- if there are significant real cuts elsewhere. a lot of these people would like to get rid of the military sequester and say, we will cut things over a 10 or 20 your period somewhere else. if that happens, i will be able to support that. you have to and knowledge military spending has doubled over the last 10 years. we should reduce the top line some. that will force the military to find the savings. that does not say where the savings have to come from. we need to audit the pentagon. we need to find savings in military spending. it is the ultimate compromise. custom is like myself who believe the military and the fences are the most important function in washington need to